Point taken, Andrew. The links are quite revealing and one can understand Tim's frustration a little better.

Thought Andrew would've gone farther back on those Photo.net links. No problem I'll provide additional links below that show Frans is not a noob.

An every 3 or so year "Pop-In" chit chatter? Yes.

And some of what he says IS insightful and informative as I told him so concerning his updated pdf listing available and affordable IPS monitors which of course he didn't take kindly to what I found online about the "Panel Lottery" going on in the display industry for both TV's and computer displays. He just dismissed my findings as here say. Not very helpful on that one.

These several years old Photo.net threads have some pretty good discussions on the Solux and how color temp appearance affects perception.

This one I started showing why it's not a good idea to calibrate your display to 5000K...

Franz has conveniently ignored a very interesting article I was given prior to release to the CIE. He said he'd get back to us after I arranged a copy for him well over a week ago. It pretty much puts a huge disqualification on this flat earth theories that all displays should be calibrated to "5000K".

I got an email from the author of the paper I referenced above for publication to the CIE (Commission Internationale de L’Éclairage) The paper is up for public viewing at:

It dismisses a lot of Franz's idea, the reason he hasn't replied back here after having had access to that paper for 10 days.

It's pretty complex towards the end but the first few pages are fascinating in terms of how differing users reacted to editing an image on differing display technologies using differing backlight technology.

At least two other's from the ColorSync list, one a respected color scientist (Robin Myers who wrote SpectraShop) with a $13,000 spectroradiometer and i1Pro who's data correlated well with mine and others. LuLa audience: This is all known to Franz and I'll copy and paste the same data from the CS list that Franz saw below. When presented this data, Franz said they (and presumably now I) did the measurements wrong. Besides what the marketing department at Solux has placed in their spec sheet, the only other person to get a value that's within what Solux provides is Franz, using a 10 year old Minolta Color meter!

To answer your question Franz, I think you are confusing marketing spec's with science here. It is not up to us to disprove Solux's numbers although we have done so to a degree (at least three independent end users reported the numbers don't jive with the spec's). It's up to Solux to provide an exact process used and for us to then correlate or not. They have not done this! They have the ability to post here, PhotoNet where you started all this, and more appropriately on the ColorSync list. They didn't in 2009 after Robin and other's posted their findings! Why don't you find out what instrument they used, the software used, and the exact testing process used to get their numbers?

It is you sir that has the devil may care attitude. You don't have the equipment appropriately to measure the SPD and produce the CCT values. You haven't provided any testing methodology Solux used to get their values but you've now posted about this in three forums and when others using at least the correct instrumentation provide values that don't jive with Solux, you have the nerve to tell us we are doing the measurements wrong! You blindly accept the marketing driven spec sheet of a company who's products everyone so far agree's is a good product and who all dismiss the values. It's a shocking attitude from someone who says he's got a bkgnd in the electronics industry. Worse, far worse is this is all due to your article, hosted on the Solux site that states we should all be using Solux 5000K bulbs and calibrate our displays to 5000K, after which we'll get a match. Anyone else here on LuLa find that approach doesn't work?

And

Tim,

Here in The Netherlands the fittings and transofrmers of solux are not available(happily so if reading the issues it gives). None of the normal 12-V halogen transformers of power supplies are actually 12-volt, most of them are 11.5-volt. That is on the supply output, not on the lamp sprocket. So, what i did is use a readilly available electronic power supply that has some regulation of the output voltage in a rang of 11.5- 13.6 volts. Its only drawback is that it cannot provide the peak current at startup of the solux bulbs(or any mr-16 halogen bulb), so i need a 150W power supply to feed 2 50w bulbs, or switch each bulb on to go to 3 bulbs on one supply. It works great and reliable, i can set it to 12-volt on the lamp sprocket.

Here in The Netherlands the fittings and transofrmers of solux are not available(happily so if reading the issues it gives). None of the normal 12-V halogen transformers of power supplies are actually 12-volt, most of them are 11.5-volt. That is on the supply output, not on the lamp sprocket. So, what i did is use a readilly available electronic power supply that has some regulation of the output voltage in a rang of 11.5- 13.6 volts. Its only drawback is that it cannot provide the peak current at startup of the solux bulbs(or any mr-16 halogen bulb), so i need a 150W power supply to feed 2 50w bulbs, or switch each bulb on to go to 3 bulbs on one supply. It works great and reliable, i can set it to 12-volt on the lamp sprocket.

JR, you really must like those Solux bulbs to go to those lengths setting up a 150W power supply that way. I'm glad it's working out for you. Unfortunately I'm not interested getting into electronics rigging just to drive one halogen bulb.

I'm pretty happy with my GE/Philips T8 flotube arrangement. They're a lot more cool to the touch than the Solux when the Eiko task lamp worked.

It's around 100 degrees right now here in Texas. I'll get by without the Solux. This is all a hobby for me anyway.

I think that was made evident in those several years old Photo.net discussions I linked to, Andrew. I have no trouble at all with my flotubes.

I just wish Frans would add something new to the discussion if he's that knowledgeable about the subject of color science and the lights that affect human perception.

I have to say after reading that CIE pdf more thoroughly, I couldn't find any new information that was helpful or useful in the field.

So I take it that doctorate thesis is based on (1) color analyzer's perception of a 5200K calibrated display's representation of a gray VW automobile image in comparison to a hard copy viewed under a 5000K GTI viewing booth? Where the result of which caused that one color analyzer to edit the image on the display as green to get a match?

I hope the CIE doesn't take that as evidence to change their entire color perception model to accommodate that one person's perception of 5000K rendering of neutral on a display vs a GTI viewing booth.

So what is the purpose of submitting such an article to CIE (now that I'm relieved that CIE isn't going to change their color perception model on account of it)?Was the author just technically proving what I tried to illustrate in my years old "Don't Calibrate Your Display To 5000K" Photo.net thread I linked to?

Thanks for the link, Andrew. Wonder if he's got the time for a discussion on the subject.

Wonder if 5000K lit content viewed on a 5000K display would act more like the effect of double profiling (warm color temp on top of warm color temp).

My LED HDtv's color temp as to be set so blue (7000-8000K) just to keep broadcast content skin tones from looking greenish brown on a lot of old movies, cable news & HSN studio lit channels. Confusing since I've been told these HDtv sets (and I thought the content as well) was encoded to HD 709 color space at 6500K.

I have to use Warm2 setting on the HDtv to get it to calibrate to 6700K on my Mac Mini using the Xrite CM. If I leave it that way for tv viewing I get the too yellowish greenish brown skin tones. Everything looks dingy and dull.

I wish I could figure out why too blue tv display makes tv content appear more vibrant and/or correct looking. The only guess I can come up with is that tv content isn't 6500K but a much warmer looking 5000K due to the lighting of the original content, but that doesn't answer why it looks correct on my 6500K computer on YouTube feeds of the same content. The content should look dingy and dull as it does calibrating the HDtv to 6700K.

Below is a photo I took of my HDtv I eyeball calibrated using Samsung's Warm1 WB setting (Standard is too blue and registers at around 8000K according to Xrite). In addition I applied a separate tweak to Gain/Offset WB to make content (skin tone) more correct looking and white shirt appear more of an eggshell off white on top of the Warm 1 WB setting. At this setting it'll read around 7400K color temp.

Note the eggshell white shirt has a very blue bias sampling the RGB readouts but yet doesn't look blue at all on my 6500K computer display.